On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 15:21, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 2:16 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thank you for this very useful summary.
>
> One general problem with the thinking behind this is that it applies much more
> to CentOS or RHEL than it does to Fedora. In particular:
> > users want a solid, stable, reliable, *unchanging* system.
>
> In that case, really, Fedora is not the answer. No matter how much I love
> Fedora, I know that it is never going to be most stable and reliable, and
> it is never going to be *unchanging*.
>
There's a lot to unpack in your reply here, but ultimately most of it
There was a lot of unpack in the first email... a lot of it seemed to
be things which you can have 1 or the other but we are trying to have
both. So I don't think this is 'begging the question' as much as
fundamental 'wat?'
seems to fall from this fundamental point. It's a logical
fallacy
called "begging the question". The current state of Fedora is...
volatile. It's new, it's exciting and occasionally dangerous. But your
presumption here is that the danger should not be avoided. You're
saying "Fedora isn't stable therefore Fedora shouldn't be made more
stable" and effectively asserting that no one *else* would want it to
be more stable as well.
Yes, RHEL and CentOS have a particular business model that rides on
"nothing changes". Modularity offers us the chance to take some of our
more radical changes and phase them in, rather than push every user
onto them at an upgrade boundary. The assertion that users of Fedora
wouldn't be welcoming to "my apps are more stable but I still get the
latest kernel/platform stuff" is, in my opinion, incorrect.
I think the issue is that neither of you are defining what expected
lifespans of stability or what stability is. After that you can
disagree whether it is important or not to what you want to do... but
until then you are both talking past each other.
--
Stephen J Smoogen.